Chanute Manufacturing Co.

Chanute Manufacturing Company (Chanute) (defendant) hired a new general manager. The manager sought to improve productivity with a new system of operation. The manager reviewed data and found a high level of absences among employees, which, in his estimation, cost Chanute more than $100,000 per year. After discussion with the union (plaintiff), Chanute implemented a new attendance policy. The new policy was a no-fault program in which nine negative attendance points led to termination (down from 18 points). However, employees now had four personal days off, which could be used retroactively after a day of work was missed, and a floating holiday. In effect, the personal days off allowed for 14 negative points. Additionally, employees could earn credit against the system for successfully working a month without any negative points and by working overtime. Still, under the old policy, employees’ negative points dropped off their records after nine months; under the new policy, negative points were permanent unless reduced by overtime or good attendance. The policy also had provisions for leaves of absence and notices to employees of possible termination, “if possible.” Although statistics after the policy’s implementation showed improvement in attendance, the union challenged the policy under the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and Chanute. The union argued that the if-possible provision provided notice solely according to Chanute’s discretion. Chanute countered that the if-possible provision referred to whether an employee actually came to work and whether it was physically possible to give notice.